What is the ruling on having an intention (Niyyah) for every prayer?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our Master, the Messenger of Allah.
Intention (Niyyah) is a pillar (Rukn) without which the prayer is not valid. The worshiper must have an intention for every prayer, meaning they must consciously intend the act of worship they are performing. Its timing must coincide with the opening Takbir (Takbirat al-Ihram). It is not a requirement to utter it verbally; rather, doing so is considered a recommended Sunnah. There are three levels of intention:
1-If the prayer is obligatory (Fard): It is mandatory to include the Intent (to pray), the Specification (which prayer, e.g., 'Asr), and the Obligation (recognizing it as a Fard). For example, one should bring to mind or say: 'I intend to pray the Fard of 'Asr.'
2-If it is a voluntary prayer restricted by a specific time or cause (Sunnah Muqayyadah): It is mandatory to include the Intent and the Specification. For example: 'I intend to pray the Sunnah before Zuhr' or 'I intend to pray Duha.'
3-If it is an absolute voluntary prayer (Nafl Mutlaq): It is sufficient to simply have the Intent to pray. For example: 'I intend to pray.'
And Allah the Exalted knows best.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law on saying the basmalah at the beginning of wudu`?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
Saying the basmalah (Bismillāh) at the beginning of wuḍūʾ is a sunnah. It is stated in al-Minhāj al-Qawīm Sharḥ al-Muqaddimah al-Ḥaḍramiyyah (p. 27): “Its sunnahs include the siwāk, then the tasmiyah (saying Bismillāh), joined with the intention (niyyah), at the start of washing the hands.” And Allah Almighty knows best.
Is it permissible for someone who is unable to fast to pay the fidyah (ransom/compensation payment) to himself, due to his own poverty?
All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
It is not permissible, nor does it fulfill the obligation, for a sick person who is currently and permanently unable to fast to pay the fidyah (ransom/compensation payment) to himself, since it is a financial obligation owed by him, established as a standing debt upon him — much like any other debt he owes. If he were to pay it to himself, it would not thereby be discharged. So if he cannot find [anyone eligible to] pay it to, it remains a standing obligation upon him, and is not thereby waived. If Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, later grants him wealth, it becomes obligatory upon him to pay it out to the poor and needy.
Imam al-Khaṭīb ash-Shirbīnī (raḥimahullāh) said: "There is no difference in the obligation of the fidyah between the wealthy and the poor person; its benefit lies in its remaining established as a standing debt upon the poor person [until he is able to pay it] — and this is the more correct position (al-aṣaḥḥ), as indicated by the wording of ar-Rawḍah and its source text." [Mughnī al-Muḥtāj, Vol.2/P.174]
Accordingly: it is not permissible for a Muslim to pay the fidyah to himself while he remains poor. If the sick person is poor, he is not obligated to pay the fidyah immediately, and it remains a standing debt upon him until a time when he has sufficient means and wealth. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.
What is the ruling of Islamic Law regarding one who purchases a sacrificial animal (uḍḥiyah) and it then develops a defect before slaughter?
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings upon our master, the Messenger of Allah.
If a defect that invalidates the sacrifice (uḍḥiyah) arises after its purchase — for example, if one purchased a sound, defect-free animal, and it then developed a limp, blindness in one eye, or a similar defect before slaughter — it does not fulfill the requirement of a valid uḍḥiyah, according to the Shāfi'ī school.
It is stated in Asnā al-Maṭālib fī Sharḥ Rawḍ al-Ṭālib (Vol.1/P.535): "Even if the limp develops [in the animal] while the knife is upon it, it still does not fulfill the requirement, because it is lame at the moment of slaughter — this is analogous to a case where a sheep's leg breaks and one hastens to slaughter it [in that condition]."
The Ḥanbalī school, however, held that if the one offering the sacrifice purchased the animal while it was sound and defect-free, and a defect then befell it afterward, the sacrifice remains valid and there is no obligation to replace it.
It is stated in Masā'il al-Imām Aḥmad, one of the Ḥanbalī reference works (Vol.8/P.4021): "I said: If a person purchases the sacrificial animal while it is sound, and it is then afflicted with illness, blindness in one eye, or a broken limb [before slaughter]? He [Imam Aḥmad] said: It is said that it still fulfills the requirement. Isḥāq said likewise, because he purchased it while sound, and the defect befell it only afterward, so it remains sufficient on his behalf." [End of quote]
Accordingly, a sheep afflicted with a defect that invalidates the sacrifice does not fulfill the requirement of a valid uḍḥiyah — whether the defect arose after purchase or during the slaughter itself — according to the Shāfi'ī school. However, there is no objection to following the Ḥanbalī position on this matter [as a valid alternative]. And Allah, the Most High, knows best.
